coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Porto.
5.  On an unknown date, the applicant and I. dissolved their marriage and the latter stayed with the children’s custody.
6.  On 28 November 2008 the Porto Family Court adopted a decision establishing the applicant’s contact rigths.
7.  On 27 May 2009 I. sent a letter to the applicant informing him that she had suspended his contact rights.
8.  On 5 June 2009 the applicant lodged an application with the Porto Family Court informing about I.’s decision to not comply with the court’s decision of 28 November 2008 and asking the court to schedule a hearing with him and his former wife (audiência de pais) so he could continue to have access to his children (processo de incumprimento das responsabilidades parentais).
9.  In June 2009 the Porto Family Court held a hearing with the parents and subsequently requested a social report about the children to the Social Security Institute (Instituto da Segurança Social).
10.  On 14 July 2009 the Porto Family Court adopted a decision suspending the applicant’s right to visit his children for a period of three months on the grounds of the social report that had been submitted on 13 July 2009. The Family Court also requested a psychological assessment of the children.
11.  From September 2009 to January 2012 the applicant lodged several requests with the Family Court seeking the reestablishment of his right to visit his children and asking permission to spend special dates (birthdays, Christmas, Easter) with them.
12.  On 4 February 2010 the Social Security Institute submitted the children’s psychological report to the Family Court. On 18 February 2010 the report was challenged by the applicant who complained that he had not been heard. On 5 March 2010 the Family Court ordered the psychological report to be completed after the applicant had been heard.
13.  On 22 March and 27 August 2010 two new reports were submitted to the Family Court and a mediation hearing with the parents was scheduled for November 2010. The hearing did not take place due to I.’s refusal to participate in the mediation. The proceedings continued and, on an unknown date, the Family Court adopted a decision stating that the applicant’s visits would continue to take place in an open place and in dates to be decided by the court.
14.  On 30 March 2011 a hearing with the parents took place and both agreed that the applicant could continue to visit his children in the Family Court’s premises.
15.  On 25 November 2011 the Family Court requested another social report on the children’s situation and their family.
16.  On 2 February 2012 another social report was submitted to the Family Court and on 28 February the applicant was heard.
17.  A hearing with the parents was scheduled for 27 March 2012 and later postponed to 2 May 2012. A few days after this hearing, the children were heard by the Family Court.
18.  On 10 May 2012 a new hearing took place in which the applicant and I. reached a settlement concerning the rights of the former to visit the children. On the same day, the Family Court endorsed the agreement.
5.  The applicant was born in 1953, in Slovenia, and lives in Braga, Portugal.
6.  On 22 November 2006 the applicant brought a liability action (ação de responsabilidade civil) in the Braga Court against F., a lawyer who had acted as her legal representative in previous proceedings, claiming damages for professional negligence.
7.  On 12 December 2006 F. was notified of the action. On 25 January 2007 he lodged his submissions in reply (contestação) and requested the intervention of his insurance company to which he had transferred his responsibility for the acts committed by him in his capacity as lawyer.
8.  On 8 March 2007 the applicant lodged new submissions in reply (réplica).
9.  By a Braga Court’s decision of 11 July 2007 the intervention of the insurance company in the proceedings was accepted. The company was summoned on an unknown date. On 14 September 2007 it lodged its submissions, to which the applicant replied on 11 October 2007.
10.  Between January and April 2008 the parties disputed the applicant’s legal capacity to be a party to the proceedings (capacidade judiciária).
11.  On 28 April 2008 the judge gave directions (despacho saneador) absolving F. of the proceedings (absolvição do réu da instância) on the grounds of the applicant’s lack of legal capacity.
12.  On an unknown date the applicant appealed against that decision to the Guimarães Court of Appeal (Tribunal da Relação). By a decision of 4 December 2008 the Court of Appeal considered that the applicant had legal capacity and ordered the re-analysis of the case at first instance. In February 2009, the proceedings were allocated to the Braga Court.
13.  On 29 April 2009 the judge gave directions setting out the matters that had already been established and those that remained outstanding.
14.  Between 28 May and 6 November 2009 the parties lodged, in total, three requests to which the judge promptly replied in less than one month.
15.  On an unknown date the case was set down for hearing on 10 March 2010. The hearing was later adjourned to 15 June 2010. A second hearing took place on 7 October 2010.
16.  On 29 October 2010 the Braga Court partially found in favour of the applicant.
17.  The parties appealed against the decision to the Guimarães Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeals on 20 October 2011.
18.  The parties challenged the Court of Appeal’s decision before the Supreme Court.
19.  On 29 May 2012 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals.
5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Bucharest.
6.  In 1999 he purchased a house and the land on which it was built, located in Bucharest. The applicant’s parcel of land was adjacent to a parcel of land purchased by two other third parties in 1948.
7.  On 13 November 2001 the applicant lodged a civil action against the two third parties, seeking to obtain the demarcation of the adjacent parcels of land and an order requiring the defendants to return to him an 11 sq. m parcel of land which was allegedly being illegally occupied by them.
8.  In a judgment of 4 April 2002 the Bucharest District Court held that the defendants had been illegally occupying a parcel of 10.78 sq. m of the applicant’s land since 1965. It established the boundaries of the properties on the basis of a technical report prepared by an expert and ordered the defendants to return the land in question to the applicant.
9.  The defendants lodged an appeal with the Bucharest County Court. The court ordered a new expert report. On 22 May 2003 the court dismissed the appeal as ill-founded endorsing the reasoning of the first-instance court.
10.  The defendants lodged an appeal on points of law on the ground that the courts had misinterpreted the facts and the applicable legal provisions.
11.  In a final decision of 26 November 2003 the Bucharest Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on points of law, quashed the decisions of the first two courts and dismissed the applicant’s action. It held that both the applicant and the defendants had in their possession smaller areas of land than those mentioned in their respective contracts of acquisition, and invited the parties to reach a friendly settlement. It also held that the parties could bring a fresh action only if they could not reach an agreement.
4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Budapest.
5.  The applicant’s employment was terminated unlawfully according to the judgment of the Budapest Labour Court dated 24 August 2004.
6.  Relying on this decision, on 19 October 2004 the applicant lodged a claim for unpaid wages and other claims against his former employer.
7.  The Pest County Labour Court rejected the claim on 5 May 2006.
8.  On appeal, the second-instance court quashed the judgment and transferred the case to the competent Budapest Regional Court on 24 January 2007.
9.  In the resumed proceedings, the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim on 28 November 2008.
10.  On appeal, the Budapest Court of Appeal upheld in essence the first‑instance decision on 14 September 2010.
11.  The applicant lodged a petition for review. On 11 July 2011 the Supreme Court reversed the previous decision and awarded the applicant 2,053,440 Hungarian forints in salary arrears.
5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Korolivka, in the Kyiv Region.
6.  On 12 July 2010 the Bila Tserkva Town Court (“the Bila Tserkva Court”) found the applicant guilty of inflicting grievous bodily injuries on a certain Mr N. on 12 May 2006. Although this type of crime was punishable with five to eight years’ imprisonment, the court considered it possible to apply a more lenient sanction to the applicant. It had regard, in particular, to the fact that he had pleaded guilty and had shown remorse. Accordingly, the Bila Tserkva Court sentenced the applicant to four years and seven months’ imprisonment. It also decided to include in the served part of the applicant’s sentence the period from 20 October 2005 to 3 May 2006 (six months and fourteen days), during which he had been detained in the context of another criminal case. Lastly, in fixing the applicant’s sentence the court had regard to the fact that he “had spent more than four years in [pre-trial] detention facilities in which the detention conditions were considerably harsher than in a post-conviction prison, and the previous judgments in respect of him had been quashed”. No further information is available regarding the earlier detention of the applicant, the other criminal cases involving him, or the judgments that had been quashed.
7.  In the operative part of its judgment, the Bila Tserkva Court also ruled that the applicant should remain in a pre-trial detention centre (“SIZO”) as a preventive measure until the judgment became final. It further noted that the judgment was amenable to appeal within fifteen days of the date of its delivery.
8.  On 15 July 2010 the term of the applicant’s sentence expired, and he asked the SIZO administration to release him. His request was rejected. On the same day the SIZO administration, however, applied to the Bila Tserkva Court for permission to release the applicant subject to an undertaking not to abscond, given that he had served his prison sentence in full. No reply was received.
9.  On 19 July 2010 the applicant’s lawyer applied once again to the SIZO administration for the applicant’s immediate release. He submitted, in particular, that there were no grounds for his client’s continued detention. A copy of that letter was also sent to the Kyiv Region Prosecutor’s Office.
10.  On 27 July 2010 the fifteen-day time-limit for lodging an appeal against the judgment of 12 July 2010 expired and, in the absence of an appeal, it became final.
11.  On the same day the SIZO administration wrote to the applicant’s lawyer stating that it could not release the applicant until either the preventive measure in respect of him was changed or the judgment became final. It was noted in the letter that, in any event, it was for the Bila Tserkva Court to authorise the applicant’s release.
12.  On 29 July 2010 the SIZO received the court’s order to enforce the final judgment and the applicant was released.
13.  On 5 August 2010 the State Prisons Department wrote to the applicant’s lawyer in reply to his complaints regarding the delayed release of the applicant, stating that there had been no violation of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4.  As respondent party, the applicant was involved in a case of property litigation as of 6 March 1996.
5.  Due to pending proceedings before the construction authorities, the Pest Central District Court suspended the procedure. Subsequently, a first hearing was held in 1999.
6.  The court separated the proceedings from further claims on 2 December 2004.
7.  On 27 June 2006 the court rejected the counterclaim of the applicant.
8.  On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court quashed this decision on 27 March 2007. It remitted this part of the action to the first-instance court.
9.  In the resumed proceedings the first-instance court partly found for the applicant on 27 January 2010.
10.  On appeal, the Budapest Court of Appeal upheld this judgment on 1 January 2010.
11.  The applicant lodged a petition for review; and the Supreme Court reversed the judgment on 9 November 2011. The decision was served on the applicant on 1 March 2012.
4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in St Petersburg.
5.  In 1995, a criminal case was opened against the applicant on suspicion of fraud and bribery. On 31 August 1995 the investigators searched the applicant’s home and office. They removed some items and money.
6.  On 10 March 1998 the applicant sued the Prosecutor’s Office for the return of his possessions. On 27 May 1998 the proceedings were adjourned pending the outcome of the criminal case.
7.  By decisions of 29 November 2000 and 23 January 2001, the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg established that the searches of 31 August 1995 had been unlawful.
8.  In July 2002 the civil proceedings were resumed.
9.  On 4 February 2004 the criminal proceedings against the applicant were discontinued. Prosecutors returned a part of the applicant’s possessions but the rest of them had already been disposed of.
10.  In its judgment of 8 February 2005, the Court found that the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant did not satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement (see Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 136, 8 February 2005).
11.  On 9 March 2005 the Oktyabrskiy District Court partly upheld the applicant’s claims. On 18 May 2005 the St Petersburg City Court remitted the case to the first instance for a fresh examination.
12.  On 13 February 2007 the applicant submitted an amended statement of claims. In particular, he asked the court to award him damages in respect of the loss of value and profit, and, finally, costs and expenses.
13.  By a final judgment of 3 October 2007, the St Petersburg City Court awarded the applicant damages and costs and expenses in the amounts claimed but dismissed his claim for the loss of profit. The City Court acknowledged that the investigative authorities had illegally removed, and subsequently disposed of, the applicant’s property.
14.  The judgment was enforced in January 2008.
4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Bataysk, Rostov Region.
5.  In 1987 the applicant took part in emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. As a result the applicant suffered from extensive exposure to radioactive emissions.
6.  In 1993 due to that fact he was granted status of a disabled person and awarded a monthly compensation, to be adjusted once a year in line with the minimum subsistence amount (величина прожиточного минимума).
7.  In 2002 the applicant brought proceedings against the Bataysk Social Security Office (Отдел социальной защиты населения г. Батайска) seeking indexation of the compensation amount and payment of the respective arrears for the previous years.
8.  On 21 January 2003 the Bataysk Town Court rendered a judgment ordering the increase of the monthly allowances due to the applicant in line with the increase of the minimal subsistence amount in the Rostov Region. In re-calculating the amount of the applicant’s allowances the court applied the multiplier of 1.92 based on the data provided by the regional committee on statistics. As a result, the monthly allowance increased up to 4,800 Russian roubles (RUB), and monthly food allowance increased up to RUB 576. The court ordered the defendant to pay the applicant the recalculated amount as from 1 January 2002 less the sums already paid. On 16 April 2003 the judgment was upheld on appeal by the Rostov Regional Court and entered into force.
9.  On an unspecified date the Bataysk Social Security Office appealed to the Rostov Regional Court by way of supervisory review seeking to quash the judgment of 21 January 2003. On 30 June 2003 the judge-rapporteur refused to initiate the supervisory review proceedings.
10.  On an unspecified date the Bataysk Social Security Office lodged a new supervisory review complaint, now with the President of the Rostov Regional Court. The President granted the application. On 24 October 2003 the case was transferred to the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court for the examination on the merits.
11.  On 4 December 2003 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court quashed the judgment of 21 January 2003 stating that the first instance court’s calculation of the compensation amount had not been supported by evidence and that the first instance court had misinterpreted the domestic law. The case was remitted to the Bataysk Town Court for a fresh examination.
12.  On 25 December 2003 the Bataysk Town Court reduced the multiplier to 1.25, recalculated the compensation amount and reduced it to RUB 3,125. In this set of proceedings the applicant amended his claims and dropped the food allowance claim. The applicant did not appeal against this judgment.
13.  On 20 January 2010 the Bataysk Town Court had awarded the applicant pecuniary damages in the amount of RUB 76,061.40 for the period from 1 July 2000 to 4 December 2007, which were paid to the applicant in July 2010. There is no information as to the grounds for the claim of the damages. Nor related documents were provided.
4.  The applicant initiated a payment warrant procedure for repayment of debts on 21 July 1997 which, by the protest of the debtor, developed into court proceedings.
5.  The procedure was suspended on 16 April 1999 due to other pending court proceedings, which ended in July 2003.
6.  Subsequently, after several hearings, the first-instance court partly found for the applicant on 21 December 2003.
7.  On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court quashed the decision and remitted the case on 10 March 2005.
8.  In the resumed proceedings, after the transfer of the case from one court to another for reasons of jurisdiction, the Budapest IV/XV District Court partly found for the applicant on 23 November 2007.
9.  On appeal, the second-instance court found for the applicant on 25 September 2008.
10.  In review proceedings, the Supreme Court upheld this decision on 14 May 2009. Its ruling was served on the applicant on 27 August 2009.
5.  The applicants were born in 1969 and 1965 respectively and live in Chişinău.
6.  The applicant was a police officer from 1991 to 2012, when he retired.
7.  On 27 February 2008 the Chișinău Court of Appeal delivered a judgment obliging the Chișinău municipality to provide him and his family with social housing. The court concluded that the applicant had been entitled to social housing under Article 35 (1) of the Law on Police Forces. This judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court of Justice on 11 June 2008 and became final on the same day. Enforcement proceedings were instituted on 10 April 2008.
8.  Between 2008 and 2012 he lodged numerous complaints about the failure to enforce the judgment in his favour to no avail. The judgment of 27 February 2008 of the Chișinău Court of Appeal has not been enforced to date.
9.  The applicant was a police officer from 1988 to 2005, when he retired.
10.  On 6 May 2008 the Chișinău Court of Appeal delivered a judgment obliging the Chișinău municipality to provide him and his family with social housing. The court noted that the applicant had retired from the police force in 2005 and concluded that he had been entitled to social housing under Article 35 (1) of the Law on Police Forces. This judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court of Justice on 23 July 2008 and became final on the same day.
11.  Enforcement proceedings were instituted on 16 June 2008. The judgment of 6 May 2008 of the Chișinău Court of Appeal has not been enforced to date.
6.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Armavir. She is disabled and is confined to a wheelchair. She depends on her disability pension as a means of subsistence.
7.  On an unspecified date the applicant instituted proceedings against her neighbour, M., seeking to have dismantled a construction that the latter had built in 1987 inside the entrance of their multi-flat house for the purpose of insulating the building. In its place the applicant sought to install a wooden ramp for her wheelchair in order to facilitate her access to her flat, situated on the ground floor.
8.  It appears that during the court proceedings the applicant, who was not represented by a lawyer, modified her claim and asked for the construction in question not to be dismantled but to be allocated to her so that she could install a wooden ramp in its place.
9.  On 26 July 2007 the Armavir Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim, finding that the applicant had failed to substantiate with any proof, such as an expert opinion, that it was necessary and possible to dismantle the construction and that it was technically possible to install a wooden ramp in its place.
10.  On 1 August 2007 the applicant, still not represented, lodged an appeal.
11.  On 13 September 2007 the Civil Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s claim on appeal. The court found that the applicant’s request to have the construction allocated to her was ill-founded since the construction had not been built by her and, moreover, belonged to the owner of the underlying plot of land. The court further referred to an opinion issued on 16 January 2007 by the Armavir Municipality, according to which it was technically preferable to build a wooden ramp from the balcony side of the applicant’s flat rather than from the building’s main entrance.
12.  On 7 November 2007 the applicant, still unrepresented, lodged an appeal on points of law with the Court of Cassation.
13.  By a letter of 12 November 2007 the Chief Registrar of the Court of Cassation returned the applicant’s appeal, informing her that the appeal had not been admitted for examination as it had not been lodged by an advocate licensed to act before the Court of Cassation, pursuant to Article 223 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the CCP).
5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Telki.
6.  Between 25 February 2002 and 18 May 2005, litigation was in progress between the applicant and his former employer. The latter was eventually obliged to re-employ the applicant.
7.  The applicant did not accept the position that was offered to him in pursuit of the re-employment order. New litigation started on 5 January 2006.
8.  On 18 November 2008 the Budapest Labour Court dismissed the applicant’s action.
9.  On appeal, on 9 July 2010 the Budapest Regional Court reversed this decision and found for the applicant.
10.  The respondent pursued a petition for review before the Kúria. On 29 February 2012 this court reversed the appeal judgment and found for the respondent.